User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty stuff

Current messages

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Icewedge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Patrick Muldoon

Just a question. I f I had added my opinion in time, would it have make a difference, or not? Can this decision be reverted? can you check on this article, I proposed for delete Gaetan BucherThanks.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't have made any difference. Even though I only became aware of it after I had closed, I did read it to see if it would have changed the decision.

I've taken a look at Gaetan Bucher. There are sources, including Time.com, but there doesn't appear to be enough to justify a standalone article. I removed the puff, and then merged the main points into the Independent Financial Centre of the Americas article. He doesn't appear to be notable beyond that company, but is enough of a part of that company to be mentioned there. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by the outcome of Patrick Muldoon. He is a candidate for Lt. Governor in one of only two states to hold governatorial elections in 2009. Yet, eveyone was dismissing him as an unsuccessful candidate. Any insights? Racepacket (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD duration change - concerns

the AFD duration discussion and policy change werent' well advertised - no notice on WP:AN or the Village pump policy section, as far as I or anyone else were able to tell. This was brought up on the Wikien-L list and concerns raised in two areas:

1. Lack of acceptably wide notification for the discussion and poll, given that it's a policy change.
2. You had voted on the proposal prior to closing it.

I posted an AN notice [1] recommending that anyone who objects start a new discussion on the AFD talk page. I also added a new section below the closed poll section on the AFD page noting the concerns that were raised.

On the first matter, I think that this poll probably was an accurate gauge of wider community feeling, despite the lack of wider advertisement. I believe we need to go through a wider review, but I think the result will remain.

On the second, I think that we may want to have another uninvolved administrator reopen and reclose the discussion, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. While I think you clearly called it right based on the obvious 3:1 margin, we do want to try and keep closures as much as possible by people who weren't in any conflict of interest over the results.

I'm posting this here to let you know about the issues and the Wikien-L discussion. I don't see this change as wrong or a mistake, but the process could have been handled better, so we should try and clean that up some.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected - there was a Village Pump notice, now archived at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_63#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days. I didn't see it at the time or when scanning the archives to check, but it was there.

The AN discussion is leaning towards more open discussion and review so far, FYI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I have responded in both places. I can see that you are well intentioned, though I think that the process that has taken place is enough, and any more would be in itself unnecessary, and in general would be encouraging of a bureaucratic attitude that is not conducive to the well being of the project as a whole. What I am more concerned about now, is how to encourage a change in behaviour away from the creep toward early closures. I suspect it will be a long slow uphill struggle to get people to change the habit of closing early. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adjusting Mathbot for AfD

Hi Oleg. Following this discussion, AfD discussions now go for seven days rather than five. Would you be able to adjust MathBot to take this into account? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Vestryhall.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vestryhall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --fuzzy510 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference for MIPRO

Hi SilkTork Hope you are well ~ I just found one more link from wiki mentioned about "TEC Awards" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC_Awards. MIPRO products have been nominated couple times. I think it's useful for MIPRO article. - any update, please let me know. thank you --Wilson0324 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Arizona State Sun Devils football team

According to WP:SK, I can actually withdraw the nomination ("No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion.") Should the user who voted delete want to continue the discussion, he would have to Open a new AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Arizona State Sun Devils football team (2nd nomination) Cheers. I'^mperator 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if nobody else agreed with the deletion. Take a look. User:Townlake said the article should be deleted. You'll need to put it back up for the full seven days. SilkTork *^YES! 17:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaica–Serbia relations

Well, I felt that since consensus had been clearly established, IAR was applicable. I am quite astonished that a rule discouraging SNOW closes has been set, but that's bureaucracy for ya. :) Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're saying! But people feel that not everyone is on Wiki every day, so a full 7 days (therefore including a weekend) is really needed for a full consensus. SNOW was designed to cut through "pointless" bureaucracy, but the new rule actually makes sense so SNOW doesn't apply to AfDs. There's going to be a few people who are not aware of the new situation, so there'll be more SNOW closes over the next few days. They are not worth over-turning, but the closers should be made aware that the situation has changed. SilkTork *^YES! 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Van Morrison

Hi. I thank you for the message on my talk page, but I have decided to stop editing the Van Morrison pages for the time being (unless my help is absolutely vital). I think that you and user Agadant will do a good job on making the article GA. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you could keep an eye on the talkpage and chip in with your view now and again that would be helpful. It's useful to have a different perspective, and for edits to be challenged. Agadant picked up on the negative comment on Morrison's live performances in the lead and I think he is right so I have removed that. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

meat

I just noticed you removed my massive grilling photo sequence. I was wondering how long it would last, after I first added it last year. :) rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at that diff, that was quite a busy and complex edit I did. I must have spent ages on that! I liked your grilling sequence and pondered long and hard before removing it, as I felt it had value. But the inconvenience of the size of the image outweighed against the value of seeing the meat being gradually grilled. Anyway, the clincher for me was adding the cheese in the last image, 'cos that aint no Royale with Cheese! SilkTork *^YES! 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Notability (schools)

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Nick-D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Userfy Blood of Angels

I'll take it. Can you Userfy it for me? I am not sure how to go about it. I did edit out what Drmies objected to, but I'll work harder to bring it up to standards. Where will it end up? Ebonyskye (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. It's here: User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels. The conditions on a Userfy are that you don't put the article back into mainspace without addressing the concerns raised at the AfD - to make it easier for you, simply ask me when you think you are ready, and I'll look over the article and give you my thoughts. The other condition is that you actively work on improving the article, and if after a "reasonable" time there has been no progress the article can be deleted. One month is generally considered to be reasonable. I'll check in on the article every now and again, and if I see no progress for one month, and the article has not addressed the concerns of the AfD I will discuss the matter with you; if I get no response I will delete the article. If I delete the article I will leave a note for you letting you know what your options are at that point. You can approach me at any time for guidance. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please let me know what remaining statements or refs are objectionable. As I said the main opponent was User:Drmies but I had already removed the statements that he objected to prior to the deletion and we both finally agreed upon the ref for FlamesRising, so I'm not really sure why the article was deleted. Ebonyskye (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added two more refs (in addition to the 2 added prior to delete) from 3rd party sources, one is a bio from Dragoncon, where Michelle Belanger was a guest speaker, and the other is a taping of her speech at Dragoncon's "Blood of Angels" panel, where the album's theme on Watcher Angels is the topic. I really think this is all I will find for refs on the internet. So, if you'd like to take a peek now... let me know. Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives advice on which sources are regarded as reliable. Well worth studying carefully.

As regards the current refs in the article. This one doesn't mention the subject of the article, which is the Blood of Angels album - therefore, while it proves that one of the people involved in the album exists, it doesn't prove that the album itself exists, let album that the album is "notable" enough for a standalone Wikipedia article. This one is a blog - not a reliable source - read Wikipedia:Blogs as sources; in addition (I made the effort and listened to the amateur recording!) it is Michelle Belanger talking about fantasy writing under the title of Blood of Angels which - in her words - she "ripped off the title of my cd, Blood of Angels" - so, it is not about the album, and simply mentions the album in passing. That is not proof of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability and read through it carefully. I know I am asking you to read a lot of stuff, but it will inform you as to the requirements of a Wikipedia article, and the reasons why the Blood of Angels article is failing. This has nothing to do with Blood of Angels. This one does mention the album, but only in passing. So we are gathering information (weak, and of questionable reliability, but information) that the album exists. However, this source says that the album is about to come out - so it's not actual proof of the album's existence - see WP:FUTURE. In addition, it doesn't deal with the album's notability. And finally, the source, fullmoonradio.com, is of questionable reliability. This is your best reference. There are several sentences on the album. At this stage it is still a "future" album, and the source is a fanzine, which are often not acceptable as sources. To check it out, ask about it on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what the people there say. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the album does exist. It is listed on Amazon[2], Billboard[3], and All Music[4]. The existence is not in question. Also, Flamesrising is a vast site covering hundreds if not thousands of titles and has many different writers, so I don't see it as a fanzine. Maybe it started out that way years ago, but it's pro now. Finally, what of the other criteria for notability, the band having charted on Billboard (this vocalist also performing on the charted album[5]) and both the band and vocalist being covered in genre magazines (Fangoria, Side-line, and others - cited but removed from earlier drafts by other editors)? I thought that counted for something. I look around at similar groups and find albums that are "out of print" and self-published [1], [2], [3], or nothing but a track list and idle for over a year with no edits [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] or pending release, and no refs at all, and no one seems to have a problem with those... So, I guess I'm asking if we can make this album a stub like those others? Ebonyskye (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Mipro

hello SilkTork ~ i saw the article. - you did a good job !! VERY IMPRESSIVE --Wilson0324 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)